MAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE propose to dispose of together the connected 26 Crl. Revision Petitions Nos. 917 to 942 or 1991, as similar point for consideration is involved in all of them.

(2.) THE material facts to be considered in the disposal of these petitions are that the petitioners Mal Singh, Surjit Singh, Baghera Singh, Jaggar Singh and Tarsem Lal had forged 26 excise permits purporting to have been issued on different dates by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Bhatinda, and they drew liquor on them from Hamira Distillery on various occasions. On detection of the crime twenty -six cases were registered by the Police, each relating to one permit. The learned trial Court held a joint trial in all the 26 cases which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the petitioners in all of them. Surjit Singh was convicted under sections 467, 469 and 120 -B Indian Penal Code. In each case, he was sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, on each count. The remaining four accused were convicted under sections 120 -B, 467/120 -B, and 468/120 -B, Indian Penal Code, in all the cases and similar sentences was imposed upon them on each count in every case. It was, however, ordered that sentences of imprisonment of the accused shall run concurrently in each cases as well as in all 26 cases.

(3.) AGAINST the convictions end sentences afore -mentioned, appeals were filed by the petitioners which were heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. He found that only in one case, out of which Criminal Revision No. 917 of 1981 has arisen, all the five accused had been challaned together. In the other cases only some of them were challaned. In the case from which Criminal Revision No. 918 has arisen, only Mal Singh, Surjit Singh and Tarsem Lal were challaned. In cases relating to Criminal Revision Nos. 921, 922, 923, 926, 933 and 934 only Mal Singh, Jagir Singh and Tarsem Lal had been challaned. In the remaining cases the only petitioners challaned were Mal Singh, Surjit Singh and Baghera Singh. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences of the relevant petitioners in those cases wherein they had not been challaned. Their convictions in the other cases, in which they were challaned, were mentioned. However, their sentences of imprisonment were reduced to the periods already undergo without interfering with the fine imposed. These revision petitions have been filed against the judgments of the appellate Court.